Verbatim
by WildeNick
Summary: This is the pretrial transcript of the City of Zootopia v. Bellwether. This is just the pretrial, none of the actual trial, and I don't have any current plans to take it any further, yet.
1. Chapter 1

**[COPY]**

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ZOOTOPIA CITY CIRCUIT CRIMINAL DIVISION

CITY OF ZOOTOPIA,  
Plaintiff,

vs.

DAWN BELLWETHER,  
Defendant.

/

Case No.: 16-FC-55

Division: T1DR /r/Z

This case came on to be heard before the HONORABLE Avec Saut, Kangaroo, Circuit Judge, at the Zootopia City Courthouse, City Center, Zootopia, Zootopia, on **[DATE REDACTED]** , commencing at approximately **0900 hours**.

APPEARANCES:

Rex Ravenger, Mouse, ZOOTOPIA CITY ATTORNEY GENERAL,  
1001 Fountain Square, 8th floor,  
City Center, Zootopia 90310  
On behalf of the City.

Fido Packer, Wolf, Esquire,  
Catrick Prowlen, Leopard, Esquire,  
Packer and Prowlen Criminal Defense,  
958 Lock Night Drive,  
Nocturnal District, Zootopia 90311  
On behalf of the Defendant.

/

INDEX

 **[OMITED]**

/

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS ENSUED IN CLOSED SESSION COURT.)

(DEFENDANT IS PRESENT.)

BAILIFF: All rise. The HONORABLE Judge Saut is presiding. Court is now in session. Please be seated.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Good morning.

PACKER: Good morning sir.

PROWLEN: Your Honor.

RAVENGER: Sir.

THE COURT: Yes, yes. I want to first address the matter of our gathering here in the pre-trial phase. It was my understanding that the Defense had several additional motions it wished to be considered in this phase?

PACKER: Yes your honor. If you would turn to -

THE COURT: That will not be necessary. I have my copy here along with the reports filed. I will spare you the suspense and let you know now that all motions have been rejected.

PACKER: Your Honor, if –

THE COURT: Please let me finish Mr. Packer. I will have my turn and then you will have your turn. Is that agreeable to the Defense?

PROWLEN: It is, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Good. Your motions were rejected on the grounds that they had no basis for ever having been filed in the first place. I understand it is your obligation to do whatever is necessary for your client but you will not tie up my court room with stalling maneuvers. I have that policy with all the cases I see. I think we all understand the high profile nature of this case and I intend there to be order and blind fairness during its proceedings. Is that understood?

PACKER: It is. Your Honor if -

THE COURT: I appreciate your enthusiasm Counsel, but that was a yes or no question. As a lawyer I hope you can appreciate that. I will let you know when it is your turn and you may bring up any concerns you may have then. On the issue of competency to stand trial that was raised by the Defense: The reports that I received were extensive. Each finds her competent to proceed. Given that several of these reports came from your office, it is the opinion of The Court that you have already had your chance to make this case and back up the motion, which you have failed to do. On the motion to change venue, I can assure you that voir dire will be pursued aggressively. The other motions, too numerous to go into individually, have also been rejected, but I assure you they were each given careful thought prior to judgement. Do you have anything more to add before we get moving today?

PROWLEN: The Defense would first like the record to reflect that it is disappointed with such summary judgement on such an important case. We second would like to submit motions to suppress evidence of article 24 and article 68 on the grounds that chain of custody could not be established. There is documentation of that in this morning's packet, if you could turn to page 91.

THE COURT: I have read it and reading it again here, and using the same standard that was used for the previous 47 suppression motions, The Court will again reject these motions. Is that understood?

PROWLEN: It is. If it pleases The Court we are then ready to move to the plea.

THE COURT: It does. The Defense has reviewed the charges, correct?

PROWLEN: It has.

THE COURT: And it understands them?

PROWLEN: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And the Defendant understands them as well?

PROWLEN: That is correct.

THE COURT: It was The Court's understanding that the Prosecution was not inclined to offer a plea bargain. Is that still the case Mr. Ravenger?

RAVENGER: It is, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And the ramifications of that are understood by the Defense?

PROWLEN: They are.

THE COURT: Then for the sake of time today, I will begin reading the list of charges. Any objection to that?

PROWLEN: None. The Defense is ready.

THE COURT: Good. If the Defendant will please rise, I will begin the reading.

PACKER: If it pleases The Court, our client would wish to stay seated.

THE COURT: Very well. The city of Zootopia charges the Defendant, Dawn Bellwether, with the following:

107 counts of conspiracy to poison

107 counts of conspiracy to disturb the peace

107 counts of conspiracy to attempted mass murder

1 count of attempted murder

68 counts of conspiracy to aid drug trafficking

68 counts of conspiracy to aid drug manufacturing

107 counts of accessory to aggravated predation

4 counts of conspiracy to blackmail public officials

759 counts of gross misuse of public resources

Felony tax evasion

Money laundering

Conspiracy to commit voter fraud

84 counts of slander

Conspiracy to commit treason against the state

343 counts of gross violations of basic mammal rights

1294 counts of falsifying data on official documents

214 counts of bribery

1 count of being a criminal mastermind

THE COURT: Does the Defendant understand the charges being levied against her and does she know the options available for her response at this time?

PROWLEN: She does, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And how does the Defendant plea?

BELLWEATHER: Not Guilty.


	2. Chapter 2

THE COURT: Are you-

PACKER: Objection

THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Packer?

PACKER: On behalf of my client, I wish to clarify the plea as 'Not Guilty by Reason of Instinctual Recidivism'.

THE COURT: Is your partner in agreement with that?

PROWLEN: I am.

THE COURT: I have a conditions before accepting this. Counsel, do you understand that this so-called 'Predator Defense' has not been successfully used in over one hundred years?

PACKER: We are aware of the precedent.

THE COURT: Do you also understand, that to the best of my knowledge, there is no precedent at all for a prey mammal using such a defense?

PROWLEN: We have exercised the same research, Your Honor, and I assure you we understand the precedents, such as they are, that exist in historical case law.

THE COURT: Do you also understand that The Court is not inclined to offer your team special provision or consideration regarding your unorthodox strategy?

PROWLEN: We anticipated that, yes. However, the Defense would once again like the record to reflect its disappointment with The Court being unwilling to make the most basic concessions for modern mammal rights.

THE COURT: As The Court, my personal willing-s are not what guide my decisions Mr. Prowlen. As for basic mammal rights, I expect you understand that the same Article that gives you the right to this defense is also capable of modifying the others. You do understand that, correct?

PROWLEN: We do.

THE COURT: And the Defendant is personally ready for an immediate modification of those rights upon The Courts acceptance of the plea clarification?

PROWLEN: She is.

THE COURT: The Court accepts the plea clarification. Bailiff, please retrieve the restraint.

 **[Whereupon][The Bailiff left the room, returned holding a box and walked to stand in front of the Defendant.]**

THE COURT: Dawn Bellwether, you stand accused of the aforementioned crimes. You have chosen to plead your innocence on the basis of being mentally incapable of suppressing genetically founded instinct and the associated biological urges. As with all mammals, you have the right of that innocence until it is proven otherwise. A basic protection afforded to you by the Magna Cognationis. This is the same document that has provided you with the right to choose the Recidivism defense. Our founders were not heartless, and they wrote that Article as a show of good faith for any mammal that is able to recognize their own faults and seek help in repairing them. However, they also understood that admitting to an inability to control ones actions was not in itself a solution to the problem. While the methods have changed over the years, the intention has not. With deep regret, what The Court does now is for the express purpose of protecting you, and the mammals around you, from harm. As a society it gives us great shame but, for the utilitarian reasoning of protecting the most rights for the most mammals, we have no choice; the protocol is clear. Bailiff, activate the device.

 **[Whereupon][The Bailiff opened the box, removed a T.A.M.E. Collar and armed it.]**

THE COURT: As the modern interpretation of the 'prescription of restraint' clause, as outlined in Article 16, Section B of the Magna Cognatione, The Court hereby orders Dawn Bellwether to remain collared, until the conclusion of this trial. Bailiff, restrain the prisoner.

 **[Whereupon][The Bailiff placed a T.A.M.E. Collar on the Defendants neck and activated it.]**

THE COURT: Are there any questions?

PROWLEN: Not at this time, Your Honor. But your office can expect an appeal for this soon.

THE COURT: Of that I have no doubt. This pre-trial is adjourned. The main phase of the trial will commence in 67 days. And may The Maker have mercy on your soul Bellwether.

 **[Whereupon][The pre-trial session was adjourned]**

.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.

Notes

Magna Cognatione:

'The Great Family', think of it like the Magna Carta and (USA) Constitution all rolled into one.

Instinctual Recidivism:

The legal and medical name for savagery.

Not Guilty by Reason of Instinctual Recidivism:

A plea that was meant to be similar in nature to an insanity plea. While Zootopian society has its stigmas with predators, science and the legal system have moved on from thinking that predator can 'revert to their primitive savage ways' and for the last 100 years or so, every Recidivism defense has been proven to actually be criminal insanity. It would be very difficult to tell the difference, but their founders lived in a time where the understanding of savagery was not where it is today.

Part of the deal, when invoking this right, is that the defendant must be restrained throughout the proceedings. Historically these were literal restraints but in recent years TAME collars became the preferred method, because in theory, they provide the defendant with the most 'freedom'. (This is not the Collar AU, but it is reasonable to think that someone still thought about them at one point and still invented them; just not with the purpose of taking over the world. I also couldn't resist the idea that she would end up with a collar in a desperate ploy for getting off of her crimes.)

It is called the 'Predator Defense' because it is only ever used by predators since it implies going savage. Technically this is a specie-al slur. It was used (unsuccessfully) in a series of high profile cases over the last century, but its popularity had declined dramatically since there essentially a guarantee that you will not be let off for it. If one was successful in this defense, the punishment is simply banishment.

Why is Bellwether using this defense? With no precedent for a prey mammal using this defense the can essentially make up a new interpretation of the defense as it pertains to prey. You would not expect to see a blackout or noticeable loss of control like you would with a predator. The prey equivalent would slow, methodical, and civilized. Her lawyers will tangle and confuse this with premeditation in an attempt to convince the jury to let her off.

If they succeeded, the plan would be to appeal her exile on the grounds that she only presents a harm to others if she is in a position of power. Essentially, if it worked, she would be able to get off with no punishment and still be allowed to live in the city, so long as she was not in a political office.

How could this possibly work?

Well a lot of the evidence that proves the extent of the premeditation, had a terrible chain of custody (thanks Nick and Judy). The star witnesses, Nick and Judy, did some things that they will not be able to answer on the stand, and they will need to plead the equivalent of the 5th (in the USA, you are not obligated to give testimony if it will incriminate you in a crime) since some of the stuff Judy did was a little on the shady side of the law (like threating to ice a weasel during an illegal detention and interrogation).

I may add to these in the future, but I have no solid plans to do so at present. I do have a minimal outline of the some of the key topics the trial would cover, but I don't have the legal background to do this in the way that it would deserve to be done. If you do, and want to take it over, lemme know, it's yours.

In the meantime, I need to get back to writing 'Three Months A Fox', because there are probably at least a few of you out there that are disappointed to be getting this, instead of another chapter of that (I know I am).


End file.
